500Club

One thing that Rob and his cohort tended to do well was use a heavy line to delineate foreground from background. Somehow this basic skill seems to have been lost. I don't know if it's the artists today, or the consistent jumble of earth toned, pastel, or sepia computer coloring, but there's way too many panels in today's books where I have to try to figure out what the image is, or what action is being conveyed.

What you love is the dynamicism of Rob's art. It's the technical aspects of art that Rob has trouble with.

 Yeah pretty much. I remember when the show was airing that was the most common criticism. They couldn’t relate to Walter or sympathize with him. He became a monster, which was the point. Showed a good mans descent into evil. But it was still very good I think the hook there was seeing someone put into a desperate state, and what lengths would he go to to provide for his family? What lines would the viewer see themselves crossing? And then, as things progress, is Walter still motivated by that desperation, or are we seeing something intrinsic to Walter, that has always been there, being drawn to the fore?

 Breaking Bad? Are you asking how a viewer would relate to Walter, et al?

Yeah. This. At some point, if a story means something, or has an impact, the character(s) have left an impression with the viewe/reader.. Once the reader feels this, the creator and the project has hooked the viewer. There’s an emotional commitment. The fan connects with the character, understands their motivation and their viewpoint, and is emotionally invested in the outcome. Ultimately, every great story allows you to see some of yourself in the main characters, and allows you to relate to how you (or someone you can visualize) would react in that situation.

Reductio ad absurdum.

The way copies are initially distributed is most definitely a piece of information relevant to the number I am trying to find. Unfortunately, it’s nowhere near enough information. It’s like counting all the stars you can see - a piece of information, but one that gets you nowhere close to any quality insights about the universe.

He dug his heels in so far, I pictured a waterskier still holding the rope, being pulled along with water up to his neck.

In application of recently applied logic, Isn't accusing a new board member of being a shill disparaging to all of this community's forum members? Casting an unnecessarily large shadow over the entire community? A community which boasts Forum members with impeccable reputations, who are widely respected, because too broad a brush is being used in this accusation, whether founded or unfounded? It's disparaging to all new posters, and painting them with a broad brush implying ignorance and stupidity. sfcityduck should be ashamed of himself.

Eight posts in and you already are looking to smear? That's a STUpendous underestimation of his total posting career.

I AM a doofus, but not because I don't use the app. I have plenty of other doofus qualifications. Likewise. I suppose we could pad our resumes by using the app...

I love the expression on his face: 'If you don't use this, you are a doofus!'

Editorial pretty much dictates things at Marvel these days. I think this is part of the problem. Aside from DCs latest push to try to establish new characters/titles with Silencer, Damage et al, mostly what you get is one big crossover or event after another. The days of Marvel Premiere, and editorially sanctioned creativity seem to be gone.

Really when you look at who Image's line up of great creators are - it's almost ALL former Marvel creators who're now doing their best work. Best work? Across the board? That's pushing it. Some of it IS great though. However... it's not work and concepts that would fit into Marvel and DC universes.

Yeah, and this the true Golden Age of comic books as far as I'm concerned. NOTE: I stopped buying DC/Marvel stuff to read years ago, which is unfortunate but the endless reboots, variants, lack of continuity and endless 'events' is a turn off for me. Sturgeon's law. Sure, '90% of everything is c##p', but there's always been a great 10% to be discovered. Even in the loathed mid 90's, there were gems to be enjoyed. On the flip side, in the much loved early 80's, despite Miller DD, CC/JB X-Men, Simonson Thor, Teen Titans etc, there was still a preponderance of c^^p.

If they are going to create, they just need to get paid accordingly, that's all. Not like they own it, sure, but a premium. I think at this point, creators' rights have changed to where creating a concept for the Big Two, that ends up being used in other media, would be pretty lucrative. Anybody know if/how Liefeld and Nicieza did with Deadpool?

My position is that the backlash against Marvel two years ago wasn't about diversity per se, it was the systematic replacement of core characters. Your points above make that even more evident. If it was about diversity, where was the backlash against the above concepts, in the much less tolerant 60s and 70s, no less?

Haven't we already established why they don't create something new? No. It's been suggested that creators are loathe to create in a work-for-hire environment, and forego possible future riches. Aside from Mark Millar, I'm not seeing much evidence that creators are saving their best concepts for self publishing ventures, as tends to be the correlate of this argument. Also, there is new stuff being created. As examples, Grant Morrison created a bunch of new characters and concepts for his New X-Men run, and Bendis is at present creating new concepts for DC. I think 'create something new' isn't so much a plea to actually create something new, but railing against the zillion derivative characters and concepts.

’I think I must’ve eaten some bad food in the Negative Zone, Reed. All that’s coming out is sand!’

Mmmm... no I don't think so. Because then all of the closet misogynist/racist/homophobe's wouldn't have joined in to make it a much bigger deal than it should be. Really, this nonsense is ALL OVER the internet. And really, it just shouldn't be that big of a deal.  Maybe. Maybe I’m being naive about this point. Because you are right - there has been more overall talk about this than one would expect.

But NONE of them were replaced for good, nor WILL they be. So why is it that big of a deal? If Hulk is selling 35,000 copies a month (2014) and they replace him with Amadeus Cho, they get: A new #1 at 75,000 copies, a #2 at 40,000 copies, and a #3 at 35,000 and by year's end at about 27,000 copies - i.e. a book that averaged about 35,000 copies for the month, same as the other Hulk. Except now they have a new property, who has gotten exposure, that can be used to sell their brand to an even larger, worldwide audience. And that's an instance where it didn't do as well. Thor picked up readers and actually increased it's print run to become one of Marvel's Top 3 monthly published titles for the first time in decades - Iron Man sold better than it had in years - despite the original characters success in movies... and all of these temporary stand-ins are geared to be marketed to a new, younger, up and coming marketplace. You're not so naive that you thought this business was all about stories did you? Oh, hell, no. But, and this was addressed in Sean Howe’s book about Marvel, they had data in the 90’s that showed these types of things led to a sales bump, and then, afterward, readership levels dropped lower than it had been prior to the change. So, why is it a big deal? People want to read the core characters they know. With these changes, some people quit reading, and, even though they probably know the change isn’t permanent, this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, in terms of some of the other points noted, like $3.99 a book, reboots, decompressed storytelling, endless derivative characters, modern coloring, variants...

Actually, let me put it to you this way: if Marvel had systematically changed all these characters to new, 30 something, straight white men, of new identities, people would have been equally annoyed.

Guy Gardner and John Stewart as the new Green Lantern... Jim Rhodes as Iron Man... Ben Reilly as Spider-Man... That dude who replaced Captain America in the late 80s... Don Blake no longer Thor... This stuff isn't new. Is it because it's women that are replacing the characters that's bothering you? No pointless ad hominem stuff, please. It’s not bothering ME, per se. Re read my post. Note: ‘in the space of a few months’. Yeah, your examples point out that this phenomenon was nothing new. The difference is, this time it was a poorly conceived, forced attempt linewide. In context of the OP, this was not well received, and in combination with other points in this thread, has led to some of the distaste for modern books.

Question of the day: Does a silhouette constitute a 1st Appearance?  Don’t be silly. Obviously, Rai’s first appearance is in the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe.

 Who’ve they replaced? In the space of a few months, you had Riri Williams as Iron Man, Amadeus Cho as the Hulk, X23 as Wolverine (as you note)... Readers are happy with the essence of the core characters. The success of the Immortal Hulk is testament to that. Long time readers want Bruce Banner Hulk stories. And, I agree with you, it would be folly for anyone who’d read comics for more than six months to think X23 was going to be Wolverine long term, but comic readers are finicky. Look at the backlash with the Hydra Cap storyline. Business wise, as I noted above, keep your core intact, and work at the edges. Amadeus Cho was already a promising character - develop him as his own character. Look at Moon Girl - her tpb’s are apparently quite popular through the scholastic book order program.